Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Accountability - Tue, 12 Mar 1996 05:18:06 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 05:18:06 -0500
From: "Jim Martin" <flatland@mail.mcn.org>
Message-Id: <199603121004.CAA11379@mail.mcn.org>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Accountability
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> Jim,
> I wonder if you would chew on this with me for a bit. My feeling is that
> before all this Carlinsky stuff came up I wouldn't have known him from Adam.
> Now that I've heard about him I am forwarned in case I ever run into him. I
> had heard of Dr. DeMeo before all this. My opinion of him has not suffered.
> He is firey but I knew that cause I've read his interviews.
I'm glad you can see through the smears. A lot of people don't have much
familiarity with Carlinsky. Nor DeMeo. Nor orgonomy. The smear was damaging to
the extent it forced DeMeo to respond in yet a new forum. There have been many
instances of this. The pattern goes like this: DeMeo is invited to participate
or give some input to a group who wants to learn more about orgonomy (my fault
here.) Carlinsky sabotages things, by raising doubts in people's minds about his
integrity. DeMeo produces the ever-growing "Carlinsky files", and people who
have been misled feel ashamed and back off. Still, to the casual observer, the
whole thing looks like yet another instance of cultish in-fighting. Neither
DeMeo nor Carlinsky is welcome back. Carlinsky's happy, DeMeo is islolated, and
the interested people lose out.
> Say I go to the Orgonomy conference in Boston this year. Chances are that
> Carlinsky will be there. I run into him at intermission.
It's possible but not likely. I don't want to get into the details, but just let
me say that the speakers, while I respect them all, have real differences with
Reich's concept of orgonomy. Carlinsky understands these differences. I can't
say whether they are right or wrong, but Carlinsky understands what Reich's
position was, and fights very hard against it becoming widely accepted.
> If none of this had
> come out on the list, I would be at his mercy. Now I'm not as gullible as I
> was and I don't open up to people easily anymore cause I've lived on this
> earth for to long, but suppose I was young and impressionable and gung ho
> about Orgonomy. Carlinsky would have a field day with me.
Now that DeMeo is no longer on the mailing list, and I am ready to take a break
from it as well, who is ready with enough knowledge on the topic to respond to
new attacks? Jamerling Ogg is widely read on the subject, and while I respect
his knowledge, his attitude seems to be: "I know Carlinsky is a plague character
and a criminal with a long record of stalking people and disrupting human
interrelationships. But I think we need to ignore all that as character
assassination and focus on his accusations which have merit even though I am
unable to provide any facts to support them. DeMeo wrote some harsh letters to
me and I feel he is just like Carlinsky. His small group of associates are just
transference-devoted goons with no minds of their own. I do not feel responsible
for my opinions and will not respond to any questions if I disagree with the
writer's tone." I think that attitude just a bit harsh, even dangerous.
If I was forwarned
> on the list at least I would have that thought in my head and would act
> accordingly. I for one am glad that this issue was aired because I had the
> oppourtunity to hear a plague attack (a good one too) and because Carlinsky
> will probably never be able to work his mischief on me and others on the
> list. It's to bad that this had to happen at Jim DeMeo's expense but I think
> this list and Orgonomy benefitted in the end because we've all been given an
> impression of Carlinsky.
To some degree, you are right. The problem is, Jamerling Ogg agrees with
Carlinsky's "critique" of DeMeo's work. I've spent a lot of time addressing
this, but I have other obligations. I know Jogg doesn't like the confrontation,
but I'll point this out: he's already become a much better writer having been
put through this drill. Let's call it tough-love. I know people want to talk
about other things, but I can't drop it until Jogg's propaganda ceases. To those
who have said "who needs this?" I can only agree.
Some people will see things as you do, others will just look at the whole
orgonomy scene and write it off completely. I think asking DeMeo to participate,
or any of the other researchers who have been attacked in a similar way even
though they are at odds with each other, is a bit much. It's up to us now. We'll
confront reality, unless we're totally feeble.
> BTW, if we attempt to limit this kind of posting a person like Carlinsky
> will find a way to get it on the list regardless, as he demonstrated.
> Remember one of the early posts on this where someone had written that he
> talked to Carlinsky and tried to tell him about the net and his comment was
> that he didn't think Carlinsky grasped it? In retrospect it appears that
> Carlinsky was playing dumb to milk this guy for information.
> - dave huisken
I'm not suggesting limiting individual persons. The way a moderated group works,
the messages are sent to a moderator, but not automatically broadcasted to all
subscribers. Various levels of participation, standards of conduct, topic
focusses are considered. The standards, focus, and responsibilies are set forth
up front, when people subscribe. Anyone who pays for one of the commercial
servers actually agreees to such restrictions (like AOL, Compu$serve, or the
WELL). All I'm saying, frankly, is that if people want participation from
scientists (I'm not one) we're going to have to set standards, not so much for
"Carlinsky" but for all posters, and the limits of what can be broadcast as
"information" on orgonomy.
And Dave, don't waste your time responding to John-Mark Battaglia's posts. His
"participation" here is irrelevant. As Reich once said, "Let the gabblers
gabble; they have nothing to say." Mr. Battaglia has offered much defense of
scientific freedom, without one scientific discovery to defend. Bozo filter.
Note that he's one of the few people who have supported Jogg's position of
"license, not freedom". He hasn't responded to Shawn's remarks, so why should we
respond to his? Jogg, hope you feel comfortable with your cohort. Your new
friends may not serve you well.
I haven't worked all this out yet, and again, I'd rather not take up room on the
OML where currently there is little support for the idea. If I do come up with a
constructive proposal, I'll post it here. People are welcome to send me
individual email at Flatland with suggestions.
The guy who mentioned that Carlinsky should get a computer is a good friend of
mine. I've been trying to tell him for years he's been used. How come you
figured it out so quick and he hasn't? I don't know. He has the idea that Joel
can be reformed. More power to him, but nothing's worked so far. Again, any
suggestions? Nothing I've tried worked either. No corner on the truth here, I
promise.
As long as we're quoting chapter and verse, here's one that came to my
attention:
"*I am angry*.
I am angry because there is so much talk of free speech and fair play. True,
there is much freedom and fair play in regard to everyday matters. But, to my
great surprise, I found that that newspapers and magazines were open to smearing
attacks on my work and my name; that one writer after another copied Brady's
slanderous statements, without first trying to find out the truth in our
literature, and that the same newspapers and periodicals seemed unwilling to
publish a simple correction of misstatements."
-Wilhelm Reich, from "Statement Regarding Competence in Matters of Orgone
Energy", repinted in *Fury on Earth*, p. 366.
To which I can only add that while Jamerling Ogg has posted Carlinsky's smear on
his PORE web page, he has to date not published DeMeo's reply. Need I say more?
-Jim Martin
********************************************************************
http://www.mcn.org/cbc/Bussect/Flatland/flatland.html
Flatland: POB 2420, Ft. Bragg, CA 95437
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com